Nuclear War against Iran

Seite 1 von 1
neuester Beitrag: 18.01.06 21:22
eröffnet am: 18.01.06 18:03 von: IDTE2 Anzahl Beiträge: 9
neuester Beitrag: 18.01.06 21:22 von: shaker Leser gesamt: 1956
davon Heute: 1
bewertet mit 0 Sternen

18.01.06 18:03

4101 Postings, 5763 Tage IDTE2Nuclear War against Iran

erstes mal, dass ein konkreter Termin für nen Angriff genannt wird.

die Märkte gehen nicht umsonst in die Knie, es dauert wohl nicht mehr lange...





Nuclear War against Iran

By Michel Chossudovsky

January 3, 2006


The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.

Coalition partners, which include the US,  Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister  Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets."  Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).

In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:

   All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.

   (James Petras,  Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005)

The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.

"Shock and Awe"

The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.

The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.

US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

   American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

   Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq

In November, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy".

Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness (See our analysis below)

While Asian press reports stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the Global Lightening exercise was North Korea, the timing of the exercises, suggests that they were conducted in anticipation of a planned attack on Iran.  

Consensus for Nuclear War

No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union.

There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin. Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic Alliance and  the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the Middle East Central Asian region.  

Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US/ Israeli military project.  A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military brass met at NATO headqaurters in Brtussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt,  Jordan,  Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol  was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria  involving the US, Israel and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.

The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat to World Peace".  

The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization agenda.  

The "surgical strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.  

We are told that this is not a war but a military peace-keeping operation, in the form of aerial attacks directed against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"

The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.  

The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002  Nuclear Posture Review.

Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war.  The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:  

   Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea]  Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ?mini-nukes? (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ?take place under ground?. Each of these ?mini-nukes?, nonetheless, constitutes ? in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout ? a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.  Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of  21000  and 15000 tons ( http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm

In other words,  the low yielding mini-nukes have an explosive capacity of one third of a Hiroshima bomb.
The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm


Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons:  

   'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox,' said Kristensen. (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)

We are a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda.

The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation of more useable nuclear weapons."  

The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of World Peace.

"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

But nuclear holocausts are not front page news!  In the words of Mordechai Vanunu,

   The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).

Space and Earth Attack Command Unit

A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.

Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of  "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "  

In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled  Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.

JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia.

Since November,  JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The  announcement was made in early December by  U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons." The exercises conducted in November used "a fictional country believed to represent North Korea" (see David Ruppe, 2 December 2005):  

   "The new unit [JFCCSGS] has 'met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability' as of Nov. 18. A week before this announcement, the unit finished a command-post exercise, dubbed Global Lightening, which was linked with another exercise, called Vigilant Shield, conducted by the North American Aerospace Defend Command, or NORAD, in charge of missile defense for North America.

   'After assuming several new missions in 2002, U.S. Strategic Command was reorganized to create better cooperation and cross-functional awareness,' said Navy Capt. James Graybeal, a chief spokesperson for STRATCOM. 'By May of this year, the JFCCSGS has published a concept of operations and began to develop its day-to-day operational requirements and integrated planning process.'

   'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its preparedness to execute its mission of proving integrated space and global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM,' he added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel.

   Nuclear specialists and governmental sources pointed out that one of its main missions would be to implement the 2001 nuclear strategy that includes an option of preemptive nuclear attacks on 'rogue states' with WMDs. (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005)

CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022

JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.

The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).

   CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

   'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)

The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.

The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.

CONPLAN is distinct from other  military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops.  

   CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations.... The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)

The Role of Israel

Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.

The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html

Late April 2005.  Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs:

Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as  "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."

The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.

The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the  GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft.

(See text of DSCA news release at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/...5-10_corrected.pdf

Extension of the War

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

At present there are three distinct  war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

More recently,  Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the acquisition of  Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October, with Moscow`s collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)

   The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.

   Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah?s beard. What?s more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)

Ground War

While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.

Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border  and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria.

In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces  in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:  

   Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.

   [According to]  ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.

   Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran's borders in winter.

   The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel's special military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.

   Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara's readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.

   (E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring Services Translation)

Concluding remarks

The implications are overwhelming.

The so-called international community has accepted the eventuality of a nuclear holocaust.  

Those who decide have swallowed their own war propaganda.

A political consensus has developed in Western Europe and North America regarding the aerial attacks using tactical nuclear weapons, without considering their devastating implications.

This profit driven military adventure ultimately threatens the future of humanity.

What is needed in the months ahead is a major thrust, nationally and internationally which breaks the conspiracy of silence, which acknowledges the dangers, which brings this war project to the forefront of political debate and media attentiion, at all levels, which confronts and requires political and military leaders to take a firm stance against the US sponsored nuclear war.

Ultimately what is required are extensive international sanctions directed against the United States of America and Israel.  


Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at   www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His most recent book is entitled: America?s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/...cle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714  

18.01.06 18:38
1

1961 Postings, 6057 Tage shakerich weigere mich ganz einfach das zu glauben!

so sehr ich sonst für Verschwörungstheorien zu haben bin - wem soll das nützen - das weiss doch sogar ein Bush Idiot!
Ausserdem wäre dann all das schöne tolle Öl radioaktiv - und das wäre dann wirklich schlimm für Bushi und auch für den Rest der Welt.  

18.01.06 18:44

3379 Postings, 5735 Tage B Ghostwenn es man mit leuten zu tun hätte, die

man einschätzen oder deren Logik man vertshehen könnte, dann würde ich sagen


ALLES HUMBUG


aber in diesen Zeiten...??!!  

18.01.06 19:25

1961 Postings, 6057 Tage shakersind wir nicht alle Menschen?

was gibt es da für Sicherheiten?
oder was für eine Logik??
Und war das nicht immer schon so???  

18.01.06 19:35
1

2728 Postings, 7218 Tage soulsurferUnterstützung eines Angriffskrieges

Israel plant auch Einsatz von U-Booten gegen Iran
17.01.2006  WWW.FREACE.DE
                    §
Wie die britische Times am Sonntag berichtete, haben israelische Einheiten, darunter auch das mit Kampfflugzeugen des Typs F-15I ausgerüstete Luftwaffengeschwader 69, ihre Vorbereitungen für einen Angriff auf den Iran abgeschlossen.

Demnach haben die Piloten der Jagdbomber ihre Übungen für den langen Flug in und aus dem Iran nun beendet und sind bereit für einen Angriff. Die Flugzeuge sind demnach mit "geheimen hochmodernen Waffen" und "Präzisionsbomben" ausgerüstet. Auch israelische Spezialeinheiten wurden darauf vorbereitet, mit Hubschraubern in den Iran geflogen zu werden, um dort Ziele direkt anzugreifen.

Noch Mitte Dezember waren Berichte über den Beginn dieser Vorbereitungen ? damals mit der Zielvorgabe, sie bis Ende März abzuschließen ? von israelischer Seite vehement zurückgewiesen worden. So nannte beispielsweise der stellvertretende Premierminister Ehud Olmert den Bericht "lächerlich".

Bemerkenswert, wenn auch sicherlich nicht überraschend, ist, daß bei den Planungen auch zwei der israelischen U-Boote eine Rolle spielen. Dem Artikel zufolge sollen sie im Falle eines Angriffs auf den Iran zur elektronischen Aufklärung eingesetzt werden. Die israelischen U-Boote sind allerdings nicht nur in der Lage, Marschflugkörper abzufeuern, diese können auch mit Atomwaffen bestückt werden können.

Nicht nur, daß die einzigen ? also auch diese ? derzeit im Dienst des israelischen Militärs befindlichen U-Boote von Deutschland gelieferte "Dolphin"-U-Boote sind, erst im vergangenen November hat die damals scheidende Regierung Gerhard Schröders in Abstimmung mit der jetzigen Regierung unter Angela Merkel dem "Verkauf" - ein Drittel der Herstellungskosten, etwa 333 Millionen Euro, wird von Deutschland getragen werden - zweier weiterer Dolphin-U-Boote an Israel zugestimmt.

Auch wenn die Lieferung der U-Boote kaum noch vor Beginn eines Angriffs auf den Iran erfolgen wird, so könnte die Gewißheit einer solchen Nachschublieferung durchaus zu einem risikoreicherem weil aggressiverem Einsatz der U-Boote führen. Im Falle eines israelischen Angriffs auf den Iran würden also mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit Marschflugkörper, womöglich mit Atomwaffen bestückt, durch von Deutschland gelieferte U-Boote auf den Iran abgefeuert werden.

Die Tatsache, daß Israel bereits U-Boote von Deutschland hat, ist nicht mehr zu ändern, auch wenn die rechtlichen Umstände auch bei diesen Lieferungen sicherlich mehr als fragwürdig waren. Die Lieferung von zwei weiteren U-Booten ist allerdings nicht mehr nur eine den deutschen Rüstungsexportrichtlinien zuwiderlaufende Waffenlieferung in ein Krisengebiet, ja letztlich sogar noch mehr als eine Waffenlieferung an eine Kriegspartei. Da es sich hier offenbar um eine wichtige Komponente innerhalb der israelischen Angriffspläne handelt und diese sogar zu einem bedeutenden Teil vom deutschen Steuerzahler bezahlt wird, ist hier von einer Unterstützung eines Angriffskrieges auszugehen.




...be happy and smile

 

18.01.06 19:42

3379 Postings, 5735 Tage B Ghostshaker: Nein

Die ganzen Kreigsherren der letzten Jahrtausende hatten nicht die Macht die ganze Welt zu bedrohen.


Dies ist erst seit 60 Jahren technisch möglich

Es liegen also auch nur bedingt Erfahrungswerte vor.


Hiroshima war schon mal ernst  

18.01.06 20:29

1961 Postings, 6057 Tage shakerDa stimme ich dir zu!

Nur heute leben wieder Menschen in Hiroshima und Nagasaki, und das nicht zu knapp.

Ich wollte nur auf die von dir angesprochene Logik sagen -> man kann mit sehr verschiedenen Massstäben urteilen was den
Logik nun sein soll. Für Bush ist es sicher logisch was er macht.

Und das einzelne Herrscher die Möglichkeit haben die Welt auszulöschen (ja das gabs früher in Anbetracht der fehlenden
technischen Möglichkeiten nicht) - dafür sind heute die Entscheidungen nicht mehr so einfach zu fällen wie früher
- denke ich jetzt einmal - als z.b.: Dschingis Kahn einfach sagte - wir brennen dieses Dorf jetzt nieder und basta!
Das kann sich nicht einmal Bush leisten.
Kim il Yong vielleicht schon (wenn er denn nun wirklich die Atombombe hat).

Also ich denke nach wie vor dass es nicht zu einem Atomkrieg kommt - es steht einfach zu viel auf dem Spiel und
es würde niemandem nützen.  

18.01.06 20:41

1961 Postings, 6057 Tage shakerHiroshima und Nagasaki -

Vor allem der letzte Absatz ist interessant!
Will hie auf keinen Fall schreiben das die Atombomben lustig waren (Gott bewahre) - doch sollte man
die (Spät-) Folgen einmal genau analysiern und nicht immer nur sagen "oh no oh my god"!
Und die Welt wird zerstört.

Atombomben auf Hiroshima und Nagasaki

Die gesundheitlichen Spätfolgen

Der 6.August 1945 war ein Tag, der die Welt veränderte. Zum ersten Mal wurde eine Atombombe abgeworfen. Bis heute leiden die Bewohner von Hiroshima und Nagasaki unter Folgen der Strahlung

Am 6. und 9. August 2005 jähren sich die Atombombenabwürfe über die japanischen Städte Hiroshima und Nagasaki zum 60. Mal. Vor 60 Jahren zerstörten die Bomben weite Teile beider Städte vollständig. Die genaue Zahl der Toten ist unbekannt. Aktuelle Schätzungen gehen davon aus, dass bis Ende 1945 in beiden Städten 200 000 Menschen an den akuten Folgen der Explosionen gestorben sind. Zu diesen akuten Folgen zählten nicht nur Verletzungen durch die Druckwelle und die Hitze der Explosionen, sondern auch akute Erkrankungen aufgrund der Exposition mit hohen Dosen ionisierender Gamma- und Neutronenstrahlung.

Häufung von Leukämien und Krebsarten
Die für den Einsatz der Atombomben Verantwortlichen hatten zunächst nur mit der Wirkung von Explosionsdruck und Hitze gerechnet. Langzeitschäden durch die Strahlung hingegen hatten sie nicht erwartet als sie die Bombe abwerfen ließen.

Aber bereits Anfang der 1950er Jahre stellten Ärzte eine Häufung von Leukämien, Krebserkrankungen und Linsentrübungen unter denjenigen fest, die die Atombombe überlebt hatten. Problematisch: Bislang kann weder diagnostisch noch molekularbiologisch nachgewiesen werden, ob eine Leukämie- oder Krebserkrankung von Strahlen hervorgerufen oder durch andere, unbekannte Faktoren verursacht wurde. Wissenschaftler wenden daher folgende Methode an: Sie vergleichen die Häufigkeiten der Krankheiten bei den bestrahlten und nicht bestrahlten Menschen. So können sie die durch die Bestrahlung verursachten Fälle abschätzen.

Beobachtung der Krebs- und Todesfälle
Seit 1950 sammelt ein japanisch-amerikanisches Wissenschaftlerteam Daten der etwa 120 000 Überlebenden. Sie überwachen die Häufigkeit der Erkrankungen und Todesfälle. ?In den ersten Jahren dieser Untersuchungen war besonders die Häufung der Leukämieerkrankungen auffällig?, berichtet Dr. Werner Rühm vom GSF ? Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit. In den folgenden Jahren normalisierten sich die Leukämiehäufigkeiten allmählich wieder. ?Im gesamten Beobachtungszeitraum von 1950-2000 traten bei etwa 87 000 untersuchten Überlebenden 296 Leukämietodesfälle auf, 93 davon werden heute der ionisierenden Strahlung durch die Atombombenexplosionen zugeordnet?, erklärt der Strahlenschutzexperte.

Bei Krebserkrankungen ist die Situation eine andere: Von 1950 bis 2000 starben 10 127 Menschen, die mit der Strahlung in Kontakt gekommen waren, an Krebs. Bei einer Vergleichsgruppe mit unbestrahlten Personen starben 9 648 an Krebs. Gegenwärtig geht man also von knapp 500 zusätzlichen, durch die Strahlung der Atombomben hervorgerufenen Krebstodesfälle aus. Aber auch 60 Jahre nach dem Abwurf der Bomben ist die Häufigkeit einer Krebserkrankung noch deutlich erhöht. Experten vermuten, dass es in Zukunft zu noch mindestens weiteren 500 strahlenbedingten, zusätzliche Krebstodesfällen bei den Überlebenden kommen wird.

Bislang wenig bekannt
Neueste Erkenntnisse deuten darauf hin, dass bei hohen Dosen auch Nichtkrebserkrankungen wie Herz-Kreislauferkrankungen durch die Atombomben angestiegen sind. Bislang ist allerdings wenig darüber bekannt, wie ionisierende Strahlung zu derartigen Erkrankungen führen kann. Aus diesem Grund wird das japanisch-amerikanische Team seine Beobachtungen fortführen.

?Eine erhöhte Häufigkeit von Erbschäden durch Strahlung konnte ? im Gegensatz zu verbreiteter Meinung ? trotz aufwändiger Untersuchungen an den Kindern und Kindeskindern der Atombombenüberlebenden bisher nicht nachgewiesen werden?, erzählt Rühm. Dies beweist jedoch nicht, dass eine Erhöhung derartiger Schäden nicht existiert. Eine strahlenbedingte Erbschädigung lässt noch nicht von einer spontan aufgetretenen unterscheiden. Deshalb ist es durchaus möglich, dass der Anteil der Menschen mit Erbschäden durch Atombomben unterschätzt wird.

Fehlbildungen häufig
Viel eindeutiger das Bild bei Fehlbildungen. Darunter versteht man die Missbildungen eines Embryos oder Fetus durch vorgeburtliche Bestrahlung im Mutterleib. Erst vor 20 Jahren erkannte man, dass etwa 30 Fälle schwerer geistiger Retardation bei in Hiroshima und Nagasaki vorgeburtlich bestrahlten Kindern durch Strahlung verursacht worden sind.

Spätfolgen geringer als gedacht
Im Gegensatz zu landläufigen Meinungen zeigen die Studien an Hiroshima- und Nagasaki-Überlebenden, dass die Zahl der strahlenbedingten Krebstodesfälle geringer ist als erwartet. Auch die Nachfolgegeneration weist nicht auf ein erhöhtes Auftreten von Erbschäden hin. Teilweise untersuchen die Forscher bereits die dritte Generation, ohne dass Hinweise auf strahlenbedingte Erbschäden gefunden werden konnten. ?Dennoch müssen die Beobachtungen an den Atombombenüberlebenden auch 60 Jahre nach den tragischen Ereignissen über Hiroshima und Nagasaki fortgesetzt werden? betont Rühm. Denn erst jetzt würden die Krebstodesfälle in den Sterberaten der im Kin  

18.01.06 21:22

1961 Postings, 6057 Tage shakerupps da hab ich doch grad die letzten 2 Worte

abgesägt - sorry.

Kindesalter Bestrahlten deutlich.
 

   Antwort einfügen - nach oben

Online Brokerage über finanzen.net

finanzen.net Brokerage
Handeln Sie für nur 5 Euro Orderprovision* pro Trade aus der Informationswelt von finanzen.net!

Oskar

ETF-Sparplan

Oskar ist der einfache und intelligente ETF-Sparplan. Er übernimmt die ETF-Auswahl, ist steuersmart, transparent und kostengünstig.
Zur klassischen Ansicht wechseln